What legislators would have heard about UW if they had listened

In 1971, the governor proposed the merger of the state university system with the University of Wisconsin, the most important change to higher education in Wisconsin in the 20th century.

It was approved after much discussion and many public hearings over 10 months. The final decision and statutory language was better because of those debates and hearings. They were spirited and sometimes acrimonious, but they served a crucial purpose and represented democracy at its best. The result was a higher education system that is the envy of other states. It has maintained the quality of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, while elevating the standards of Wisconsin's other universities.

Last month, the Committee on Joint Finance voted to make significant changes to that carefully written language that completed the merger, the most important changes in public higher education since then. It voted without any public hearings and with no debate. The changes were announced the day they were voted on. The changes to tenure and governance have caused alarm in Wisconsin, expressed in a letter signed by more than 450 of its best scholars, and resulting in expressions of concern and condemnation by 22 national higher education organizations.

If the legislators had held public hearings, they would have learned that the flagship of the UW System, UW-Madison, is the most cost-effective public university in the United States, attracting more research money, at lower faculty salaries, than any other university. They would have learned that individual professors at UW-Madison are paid more than $30,000 less than the University of Michigan, while Wisconsin's university attracts almost as much outside research money as the University of Michigan, over $1.2 billion annually.

If the legislators had held public hearings they would have heard from senior faculty members who would have described their hiring many years earlier by senior, nationally regarded scholars who insisted on only hiring the best. They would have explained that they came to UW-Madison because of the excellence of our university and that they have worked to maintain that excellence. They would have described how the historically strong leadership at the university and from the state Capitol has made it possible for them to do their jobs, knowing they were protected and supported. They would have described how the famous Sifting and Winnowing statement, on the front of Bascom Hall for more than 100 years, has a special meaning to them. It represents a century-old commitment to academic freedom.

If the legislators had held public hearings, the faculty would have explained that they have not complained about their salaries, even though they are lower than their colleagues around the country and the increases in those salaries have been few and meager in recent years. They could have explained that their salaries for full professors are 13th in the Big Ten, above only the University of Nebraska, but that the quality of their university is equal to any of the 14 universities in the Big Ten.

If the legislators had held public hearings, the faculty could have explained how UW-Madison and its sister universities have weathered budget cuts of three quarters of a billion dollars over the last 12 years. While those cuts caused serious problems, they did not strike at the core values of Wisconsin universities.

If the legislators had held public hearings, many faculty could have described that they have been contacted by their colleagues around the country, encouraging them to leave UW-Madison and join their universities. The faculty would have made clear they don't want to leave UW-Madison, a university they love. They do want leaders in Wisconsin to continue the traditions that attracted them to come here where they received their training, the best in the United States.

The immigrants who settled this state in the 19th century brought with them not only their meager possessions, but their hopes and their dreams, not just for themselves but for their children. They made a deep commitment to education which has continued for 150 years.

The governors and legislators have continued their part of that social contract by providing support and an atmosphere that permitted the creation and maintenance of a university that is ranked among the 25 best in the world.

If the legislators had held hearings, the faculty could have described what they are doing to uphold and continue their responsibilities under this historic contract.

But the legislators held no hearings in making the largest changes to public higher education in Wisconsin in over 40 years.

If the hearings had been held, would it have made a difference? Would our have legislators have listened? Would they have heard? Would they have cared?

Harry L. Peterson is emeritus president of Western State Colorado University and served in the chancellor's office at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from 1978 to 1990, the last two years as chief of staff to former Chancellor Donna Shalala.